by Sam Caramela

Created on: February 07, 2007   Last Updated: April 19, 2007

International courts are only as effective as the foundations on which they are built. Similar to any state court, they need a founding document, to which all the members believe and adhere. Another key element to the success of any court is enforcement. The pronouncement of judgment alone will not effect any change, without a strong enforcement arm. This brings us to the problem of enforcing judgment on a sovereign state. To do this, in the case of a non compliant state, you would have to resort to war. Another problem is that most states would see the submission to a world court, as a relinquishment of their sovereignty to a judge, or panel of judges.

Although international courts have been successful in prosecuting individuals, it has been after military intervention and the liberation of the people that suffered under their rule. Rulings against sovereign states, where the people support or are subjects to their government, are more difficult to enforce. The national community can try the usual enforcement strategies, like political and economic sanctions, but ultimately it's the people who suffer, while the government remains unaffected. This is similar to what happened with Saddam Hussein after Operation Dessert Storm and pre-Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Most nations, though wanting to live peacefully with their international neighbors, are reluctant to submit to a court that does not subscribe to the same standards by which their own citizens are ruled. Nothing that is convened internationally is going to be acceptable to all the nations involved. Laws and the moral components that make them are very different from one nation to another. These cultural moralities (or lack there of) are what divided the world into nations in the first place. The only way to effectively police the world is through alliances with like minded countries, who come together to enforce the basic principles of liberty. NATO is an example of this type of alliance, and their ability to enforce their will on another rogue state or states. The difference here is, you don't elect judges to decide the fate of other states; you build alliances, backed by the people of the nations involved. Again it comes down to the people ruling the government, not some judge or panel of judges ruling the people.

Though some of the courts of late have been effective in changing minor policies; and have delivered some international criminals to justice, their abilities to deal with the problems of the world are limited, and should be left to diplomacy and alliances between nations. The international courts cannot do anything that can't be done between nations, using their diplomats and sometimes their economic and military power.

Learn more about this author, Sam Caramela.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.